So basically you're biased against the north-east? I think the north-east has had enough bashing from Republicans for political reasons.

No, I'm not.Run a working class ethnic Catholic from Massachusetts or Rhode Island and I think they'd do pretty well (remember that Tip's approval rating was higher than Reagan's when he retired in '86), run someone who comes across as a WASP though...

So basically you're biased against the north-east? I think the north-east has had enough bashing from Republicans for political reasons.

No, I'm not.Run a working class ethnic Catholic from Massachusetts or Rhode Island and I think they'd do pretty well (remember that Tip's approval rating was higher than Reagan's when he retired in '86), run someone who comes across as a WASP though...

What about FDR? Do you like him? Did he seem like too WASPish to be a good President? Don't let minor points like that he ended the Great Depression and won World War II distract you from your real opinion of him.

Well, I guess Smith only got 92% in South Carolina. Guess there was good Catholic turnout there. ha.

Oh dear. Someone knows less than he likes to let on. Go find out how many people actually voted in SC prior to the '40's...

There were 62,700 catholics or blacks voting in SC in 1928?

don't be stupid. As it's been said race was too polarizing an issue for MOST whites to care that Smith was a Catholic... and regardless of Smith's opinions on race, SC was a SOLID democrat state and it voted that way... Smith might have lost a few white votes but in SC it didn't matter nearly as much as it mattered in less-Southern states like Texas and Tennessee.

Well, I guess Smith only got 92% in South Carolina. Guess there was good Catholic turnout there. ha.

This "big tent" stuff is hilarious. Guess what, your goal is to get MORE THAN THE OTHER SIDE. Too big of a tent collapses.

The country is only "changing" insofar as we let millions of Mexicans enter it every year. But they aren't as culturally inclined towards victimology, so Democrats hold more limited appeal to them and win a majority of their votes mainly because of economic reasons (i.e. the majority are in lower income brackets).

The idea we "need" California is quite simply laughable, as is the idea we "need" a black woman in charge for the party to survive. As far as my Bush predictions, they were good enough to make 2 grand, which I assume is more than you made off the election-- as the election drew nearer, by the way, my predictions were very accurate, it was merely early ones that did not take a disastrous first debate performance into account.

I mean, some people here maybe don't understand democracy. Unlike North Korea, we don't have to pretend there is 100% consensus. There isn't. And guess what? Conservatives want to actually implement CONSERVATIVE policies. Imagine that fordy. And here you thought the GOP was purely in a game with Democrats to win elections, where ideology doesn't matter at all.

I'm glad these people aren't coaches. 'Hey team, yeah technically our goal is to win, but if we don't win by 10 that isn't good enough, because the game is changing, uh, somehow.' 'Oh, and we can't win by using the same gameplan. Like, we need to use the other's sides plan, because otherwise, we aren't being fair.'

These people should go over to the "emerging Democratic majority" site, where idiots keep saying Democrats have to win because we imported so many Mexicans and because women hate Republicans because of abortion. Oddly, Democrats have been in retreat at all levels since 1994, but I guess that majority will emerge eventually. Just keep people poor and import another 30 million Mexicans. So Republicans should really not run anyone except female minorities-- from the West coast or Northeast-- because otherwise they might keep winning elections by relying on... UGH.. the majority vote. I hate majorities actually, they're terrible politically...

My election prediction was better than your. Only one person beat me, I think it was ATFFL, when we put our final prediction up. I got only one state wrong, and it was a state that I went out on a limb on (Hawaii).

The actual percentages Smith got in SC is irrelevant. How he fared relative to other Democratic candidates of that era is relevant. He fared significantly worse in the South than other Democrat did, in part because he was Catholic.

Too big a tent collapses, eh? Yeah I'd really hate to have all those darkies and beaners in my tent. What the hell is wrong with you?

If you think the Bush 51% coalition was created to get just enough votes to be able to implement conservative polices, you're crazy. The Bush coalition is a failed attempt by Karl Rove to build the big tent Soulty and I want. He's just not very good at it. Its remarkable how self contradictory you are today. You claim the country is only changing because of too much immigration, yet the very 51% coalition you idolize is in the middle of creating an amnesty program that goes softer on immigration than anything Clinton or Carter would have dared! The 51% coalition isn't conservatism by design, its a big tent program that doesn't work.

For someone who likes to pretend to be a great debate champion, you sure suck at it. After all, one of the first things debaters learn is not to resort to fallacies like straw men.

You say that I said we "need" California, putting quote marks around California as if those had been my words. here's what I actually said:

He's (Sanford) a southern, male, white, Protestant with a basic Bushesque conservative philosophy that will never appeal to California or other such Democrat states.

So I guess I didn't say anything like what you represented as my position. Its a straw man!

Here's another. You claimed I said we need to only nominate women and minorities and only from the north and pacific. I never said that, I simply said that hey, once in a while, a WASPy motherer might have to wait on the sidelines while a woman or minority gets the nod, or a southerner might have to wait on the sidelines while someone from the Pacific gets the nod.

By the way, imagine if southerners Harold Baker or George Bush had been on the top of ticket in 1980 instead of Pacific Coaster Ronald Reagan. Why, we'd never have had to sit through those liberal tax cuts and that lefty do gooder dismantling the USSR. He even went to a Communiist Party meeting and voted for FDR! The whole Pacific Coast just sounds like Moscow with folks like that.

Let's suffice to say that some anti-Catholic bias exists. It exists on the GOP side among SOME evangelicals. It exists on the left among SOME irreligious.

I happen to be a consevative Catholic who voted against the Catholic candidate because I found him to be Catholic in name only, or Christian in name only for that matter.

As for finding a candidate that can win more than 55% of the popular vote, forget it. I believe that Bush could have, if he had been given even-handed treatment my the mainstream media. Considering how they bashed him, or even concocted stories to derail his campaign, getting 52% was pretty damn impressive.

I don't believe that a Democrat candidate is going to break 50%, much less 55%, unless they move to the center and nominate---yes you guessed it, a Southern Governor. That's just my opinion.

As for the GOP nominating a non-Southern candidate, it doesn't look good in the near term. Most of the well know Northeastern GOP candidates are TOO moderate for the base. That's why Santorum has a possible shot at it.

As for Sanford, the reason this thread exists, I don't know the slightest thing about him.

So basically you're biased against the north-east? I think the north-east has had enough bashing from Republicans for political reasons.

No, I'm not.Run a working class ethnic Catholic from Massachusetts or Rhode Island and I think they'd do pretty well (remember that Tip's approval rating was higher than Reagan's when he retired in '86), run someone who comes across as a WASP though...

By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC. Don't kid yourself. World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

I agree. How the hell did they start arguing about that anyways? This sort of thing happens all too often.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2005, 08:22:43 pm by Bob »

Logged

Here’s what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins “Country First” buttons on his man titties and chants “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC. Don't kid yourself. World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.

By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC. Don't kid yourself. World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.

The unemployment rate went from 25% to 17%, an 8% drop, under the New Deal. It went from 17% to 9%, another 8% drop, in just two years once war industry revved up.

By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC. Don't kid yourself. World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.

The unemployment rate went from 25% to 17%, an 8% drop, under the New Deal. It went from 17% to 9%, another 8% drop, in just two years once war industry revved up.

Unemployment only counts people who both1. HAD a job 2. Are ACTIVELY looking for a job

By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC. Don't kid yourself. World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.

The unemployment rate went from 25% to 17%, an 8% drop, under the New Deal. It went from 17% to 9%, another 8% drop, in just two years once war industry revved up.

Unemployment only counts people who both1. HAD a job 2. Are ACTIVELY looking for a job

By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC. Don't kid yourself. World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.

The unemployment rate went from 25% to 17%, an 8% drop, under the New Deal. It went from 17% to 9%, another 8% drop, in just two years once war industry revved up.

Unemployment only counts people who both1. HAD a job 2. Are ACTIVELY looking for a job

It's an overrated statistic.

You're mom is an overrated statistic.

WHOA! Gotta give you points for originality there, John.

« Last Edit: March 06, 2005, 04:01:27 am by Bob »

Logged

Here’s what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins “Country First” buttons on his man titties and chants “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

He's also pretty overrated, people are just judging him based on pure potential. Does he have a great record as governor? According to our two South Carolinan posters, both independents, it's hardly stellar.

It's pretty hard for a SC governor to have a stellar record, and Sanford's biggest lack has been in his handling of the General Assembly which is where the power is concentrated in this State. He’s personally popular and his views are mainstream GOP. I’ll grant that he’s light on foreign policy, but not as light as Gov. Bush was in 2000. Given as how there are plenty of potential VP's with foreign policy credentials, I doubt that unless Iraq is in much worse shape in 2007 than I expect that Sanford's lack of expertise in that area will be a major concern.

Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch

He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a

You are, of course, the original perpetrator of this whole thing. Thank you for concentrating on one point of my argument in some attempt to discredit me. This wasn't even a point. It was a sub-point of a point. You could have said that is was great of me for being a progressive thinker and thinking that a woman or minority could do the job, but intead, you attacked me for say that Catholics are a minority when pretty much any political science professor who has study voting patterns would agree with me.

actually no. You're basically advocating affirmative action. I will never take anyone's race or gender into account when voting for them in a primary. I will vote for the candidate I like best.

oh and Al, just exactly what percentage of the population would you estimate supports Paisley? Is there any part of the country where a majority of people would be big fans of him? Is he overall perceived as semi-credible or just a huge loon? Scary that people like Pat Robertson are considered semi-credible here, and also scary is Paisley is considered the same in the UK.

Guess what-- that's not 51% of the populations view. They were just afraid of Kerry. If you think most Republicans want amnesty, you're living in a dream world. Most HISPANICS don't support amnesty, let in alone Republicans.

I have this weird notion, where the best candidate should get the nod. Hmm, thought that was America, but "Republicans" like soulty and ford apparently disagree. If I'm going to have a racist government, it may as well be led by Democrats... Republicans that hate the base of their own party.

Bush slid by because of the war, but that's not happening in 2008. There's going to be a line drawn... protect this country's borders, get our finances back in order. If the Republican won't do that, he won't win-- period. I'll help put a Democrat in the White House before being neutral on a RINO or Affirmative Action pick, and so will a lot of people.

Democrats, they just want to win elections. Republicans, according to traitors like ford, are not interested in winning... we have to surrender on the issues so that we can get some magical number and declare ourselves uniters. So give in to socialist medicine, mayhem on the border, massive deficits, the blocking of good judges... just give in. That's what most people that win do-- surrender.

Then some nitwit tries to lecture me on fallacies? lol, incredible. Almost as hilarious as some turncoat lecturing people on the Republican Party.

Guess what-- that's not 51% of the populations view. They were just afraid of Kerry. If you think most Republicans want amnesty, you're living in a dream world. Most HISPANICS don't support amnesty, let alone Republicans.

I have this weird notion, where the best candidate should get the nod. Hmm, thought that was America, but "Republicans" like soulty and ford apparently disagree. If I'm going to have a racist government, it may as well be led by Democrats... f**ck Republicans that hate the base of their own party.

Bush slid by because of the war, but that's not happening in 2008. There's going to be a line drawn... protect this country's borders, get our finances back in order. If the Republican won't do that, he won't win-- period. I'll help put a Democrat in the White House before being neutral on a RINO or Affirmative Action pick, and so will a lot of people.

Democrats, they just want to win elections. Republicans, according to traitors like ford, are not interested in winning... we have to surrender on the issues so that we can get some magical number and declare ourselves uniters. So give in to socialist medicine, mayhem on the border, massive deficits, the blocking of good judges... just give in. That's what most people that win do-- surrender.

Then some nitwit tries to lecture me on fallacies? lol, incredible. Almost as hilarious as some turncoat lecturing people on the Republican Party.

Just out of curiosity, do you honestly believe that Rice and Gonzalez getting their current jobs had absolutely nothing to do with their races (and thus affirmative action)? If so I have some nice oceanside property in Minnesota to sell you.

Rice? Not so much-- she's worked her way up the foreign policy ladder. Was it a factor? Possibly, but since she's fully qualified, it's hard to complain too much.

Gonzales? I dunno, I think Bush trusts him completely, and that's why he gotten his jobs.

The GOP uses affirmative action all the time, but those two cases are not blatant examples. There are more obvious cases. If the GOP keeps it up, it will be a real "minority" party before too long.

What the GOP tends to do is grab some of the mosst conservative minorities they can find and then act like they represent the vies of the minorities simply because they have a black or hispanic. You think Gonzalez and Rice (or another minority) would have their positons if they were closer to the mainstream views of their race?? Do you think they would have their positons if they were moderate?? They went the moderate minority route already (though Poweel did deserve the position) but they didn 't get the result they wanted (because Powell dared question the adminstratioon) so as long as they can grab a conservative minority they will do so, so they can claim they reprsent minorities as well & reach-out to them, even though the politics of the minorities they pick don't represent te views of most minorities (or even remotley close in some cases)

You are, of course, the original perpetrator of this whole thing. Thank you for concentrating on one point of my argument in some attempt to discredit me. This wasn't even a point. It was a sub-point of a point. You could have said that is was great of me for being a progressive thinker and thinking that a woman or minority could do the job, but intead, you attacked me for say that Catholics are a minority when pretty much any political science professor who has study voting patterns would agree with me.

actually no. You're basically advocating affirmative action. I will never take anyone's race or gender into account when voting for them in a primary. I will vote for the candidate I like best.

It isn't affirmative action. The people I was talking about acctually earned their way in. Affirmative Action is when you set a particular quote, with no regard for whether or not someone earned their way more than anyone else.

Pointing out the spelling mistakes of others is childish and trollish.

Quote

Secondly, note that you claimed I "wasn't Catholic," which was actually a lie.

I didn't know, so I don't see how it can be a "lie".

Quote

Thirdly, Kennedy actually won a good portion of the South, Catholic and all, while losing many Northern states. Actually, Alfred Smith won the Deep South as a Catholic in 1928.

How can you say that? Kennedy did worse than any other Democrat of that era. Smith as well. Not that that is hugely importantant, because I never said that anti-Catholic bias was localized in the south. Did I?

Quote

Fourthly, even if bias against Catholics still really existed, which it doesn't, you are racist against Southerners, and thus a worse offender.

This is why I can't stand newbs, sometimes. They have not been around long enough to know what they are talking about when attacking others. I have probably defended the south far more than any northern poster on this board.

Quote

Fifthly, by pursuing a racist policy against the base of your party, you are essentially a traitor to that party and certainly not welcome in it.

I think I already answered the first part, so I need not go on with that.

oh and Al, just exactly what percentage of the population would you estimate supports Paisley? Is there any part of the country where a majority of people would be big fans of him? Is he overall perceived as semi-credible or just a huge loon? Scary that people like Pat Robertson are considered semi-credible here, and also scary is Paisley is considered the same in the UK.

Paisley is a hell of a lot worse than pretty much any nutter you have in the U.S.

As for support, in the mainland he's regarded by most people as a nutter (although I'd say something like 5% like him) but in Northern Ireland... well that's when things get scary.

The DUP is the largest political party in Northern Ireland nowadays. It won the Assembly Elections and the Euro Elections comfertably. It will probably win the Westminster and Local Elections in NI this year as well.